Friday, March 31, 2006
Noam Chomsky on Democracy Now!
This afternoon on Democracy Now!, professor Noam Chomsky gets the full hour for an interview. The link is right over on my sidebar, I value this program greatly. Go check it out.
Mr. Chomsky was just named like #1 citizen of the world by some international board. He's got a pretty damn big brain.
I doubt anybody can be a good citizen or informed individual without having read some of his unbelievable work.
If any conservatives would like to suggest a thinker of Chomsky's stature on the other side, please let me know. Of course, if a conservative read some Chomsky, he or she would be so shocked by how mis-informed they are about how the world works and what progressives are actually fighting for that they might have quite a change of heart.
Mr. Chomsky was just named like #1 citizen of the world by some international board. He's got a pretty damn big brain.
I doubt anybody can be a good citizen or informed individual without having read some of his unbelievable work.
If any conservatives would like to suggest a thinker of Chomsky's stature on the other side, please let me know. Of course, if a conservative read some Chomsky, he or she would be so shocked by how mis-informed they are about how the world works and what progressives are actually fighting for that they might have quite a change of heart.
Thursday, March 30, 2006
Spiritual Addicts
I'm going to place the further anaylsis of the Iraqi War on hold for a posting. Not to imply that I don't feel that war is a burning tragedy that be roasting our national soul alive every second that we impotently sit by and do nothing to resolve it - since the will of the people to prevent that obvious foreign relations fuck up was unsuccessful, now we must all work to resolve it - yet my mind is drifting in another direction. What can I say, I'm a twentieth century, digital boy. Distraction is a playground in my soul.
Yesterday I had an interesting experience at the workplace. We were listening to NPR (I know, I know, I never cease ripping on those ball-less 'journalists', but sometimes it can serve as a fair 'middle ground' for the workplace.) Anyhoo, I was amazed to hear a banal 'debate' between an atheist professor and a 'christian' one. To my further amazement, within minutes of turning the radio on that boring moderator made reference to Bart Ehrman's latest book, Misquoting Jesus. "Holy Shit," I exclaimed, "I just read that book yesterday." Then a few minutes later, Phillips and his book on American Theocracy was referenced. "Well, fuck me running," I again ejaculated, "I just finished that book this morning."
There is another point to that paragrab besides my effortless existence at the cutting edge of our modern cultural dialog. There is a secular push back being seen in the society against the radicalization of religion. I've now heard five atheists on any sort of mass media in my entire fucking life - and I'm an atheist, so I tend to pay pretty close attention to my own kind. I'd say Phillip's book represents a major glove being thrown down by the established powers against the evags, and NPR's willingness to touch the topic (cuz they won't touch any topic that ain't green-lighted from on high after the castrations they've suffered in the last four years) show us something of that trend.
I'm all for it. I'm totally willing to be a partisan hack, a loyal soilder, the man who takes point on this expedition into enemy territory.
Let me launch our first excursion with another insight gleamed from said workplace situation. As the atheist professor filled his few minutes of airtime with meaningless, haughty statements, my co-worker began to elucidate to me the difference between having a certain level of understanding of the bible - and something to do with Jesus saying something about scriptures and then more scriptures- and having a 'relationship with Jesus.'
Now I have a pretty negative view of the economy, so I once again proved that I can act in my own short-term interest; I shut the fuck up.
Here is what I wanted to say: What if what you and so many of your fellow christians describe as a 'personal relationship with Jesus' is a perfectly normal emotional experience? What if what you feel to be the touch of the divine is actually nothing more than an output of chemicals within the brain which can be triggered by countless combinations of stimuli? I mean, it is powerful, nobody will deny that the experience of 'Jesus in your heart of hearts' is one of the most powerful emotional experiences one's likely to have, right up their with quality sex or the birth of a child; yet in the end it is a natural experience.
Think about it. There are thousands of other religions out there in the world, and you believe that every single one of them is full of shit. Yet every one of them, the fundementalist in particular, will describe transcendental spiritual experiences. They all believe that what they are feeling is the proximity of the breath of God - but you know that they are full of shit. So what they are feeling must just be a release of brain chemicals that they misunderstand to be the work of the spiritual.
There is no doubt that when heathen voodoo worshippers are shaking on the ground as the spirits of good and evil possess their bodies that they are totally wasting their time in a false faith. Yet the experience that grips them, the one that has them thrashing about to the beat of pagan drums, that powerful dumping of adrenaline and other groovy brain chemicals is real.
Perhaps you could ponder it from this direction. When we see movies, sometimes when the movie is good, we feel some pretty powerful emotions. The movies do not physically touch us in any way, and we don't take any chemicals into our bodies (well, most people don't), yet when Leonardo di Caprio's lifeless body slides down into the watery abbyss; I'm man enough to say I choked up. Even if Titanic didn't get to you, some movies have.
Ah, you say, but that's just a movie, not a spiritual experience! Wait! Just hold out with me for one more notion.
Those who study film or most other arts are familiar with the term - suspension of disbelief. This is the part of the human experience where we know that the droids and the lightsabres are not real, but we choose not to focus on that point for the next hour and a half. By shutting down a bit of the skeptical defenses in our brain we allow the movie to get in and have a more powerful effect. I'm sure you've seen movies that you sat through with the premeditated determination to hate (like with me and Tom Cruise movies), since you refused to let down your skeptical defenses, refused to suspend your disbelief, the film was powerless to engage your emotions.
I've heard that a hypnotist cannot hypnotise anyone who is determined not to be.
How many of our other social exchanges work in a similar manner? One must lower ones defenses and expose oneself somewhat in order to reap the social rewards of that interaction.
We are social creatures. Our species has survived, thrived, and now threatens to end life on earth because we have very powerfully evolved neurological mechanisms for rewarding social behavior. In order to achieve a longer, harder penis, one must lower one's natural skepticism and respond to some poorly typed spam. In order to grow into a full adult, one must lower one's defenses and enter into a mature relationship with a partner - fuck if that partner couldn't betray the very jewel of your soul and throw you in the gutter like trash, but sometimes they don't and the bonding pleasures your brain will release over time still staggers me on a daily basis. You have to take a chance and lower your skeptical defenses in order to engage the triggers in the brain that reinforce social behavior. When you buy a new vehical, you have to overcome your skeptical defenses and hope that even though this guy is both a used car salesman and Irish, he might be that one honest member of each group and that truck might actually be a fair deal. I'd say this social risk/reward paradigm be pretty universal.
So now we get around to your experience, my evag associate. Can we think back to our first born-again experience - cuz I still remember mine quite vividly. There is a strong social element. Suddenly I went from singing in a group with my eyes closed to being drawn up in front of a room of about fifty by a good-looking older man. Everyone's attention was focused on me in a way that I don't know if I had ever experienced before. Being in front of a crowd always invokes a lot of primitive reactions in our species, and I didn't have any Idea that this was coming. I'd only gone to this youth group to humor a friend (more than just humor, I needed every friend I could get at age 15) now all of a sudden I was in front of a whole group of people who professed to already have Jesus living in their hearts (I was raised catholic, so I thought the safe move was not to raise my hand when the preacher asked that question while we all had our eyes closed) , my heart was pounding like a jackhammer and I began to overheat as I struggled to control the shaking and not make myself look like more of an ass. I don't even remember the next few minutes, but all of a sudden all of these cool kids were patting me on the back and congratulating me - all of that uncontrollable stress response turned into a wash of victory endorphins.
We know that social situations can trigger powerful responses in our brains. Just like the movie, in order to experience the powerful emotions in an evag 'born again' session one has to lower one's defenses. How many phrases about being 'obedient to His voice' and 'opening your heart to Him' unpack with new meanings when you think about it like that. You can't experience Jesus in your Heart of Hearts until you believe; i.e. suspend your disbelief. You are encouraged to shut off every part of your developed consciousness that might have a problem with a super-powerful invisible being who only wants to see you happy and successful. A being that once destroyed the earth with a magical flood (that left zero record) and drowned millions, a being that dislikes gays and hates foreskins. Only when you shut off those portions of your brain can you get the wonderous payback in a groovy neurological cocktail of adrenaline, endorphins and serentonin. It's an awesome trip, and those preachers have been refining the quality of their shit for six thousand years.
I still think the rattlesnake christians, who would engage in a similar routine, but who also handled live rattlers since their true belief would protect them from venom got a better high - It's like weed vs. meth, one will turn you into a fucking retard, the other will lower your GPA by about .25.
The difference between movies and religion is similar, and equally harsh. Once the flick's over I stop believing in the Force and lightsabres, 'born agains' spend the rest of their life commited to their suspension of disbelief.
Yesterday I had an interesting experience at the workplace. We were listening to NPR (I know, I know, I never cease ripping on those ball-less 'journalists', but sometimes it can serve as a fair 'middle ground' for the workplace.) Anyhoo, I was amazed to hear a banal 'debate' between an atheist professor and a 'christian' one. To my further amazement, within minutes of turning the radio on that boring moderator made reference to Bart Ehrman's latest book, Misquoting Jesus. "Holy Shit," I exclaimed, "I just read that book yesterday." Then a few minutes later, Phillips and his book on American Theocracy was referenced. "Well, fuck me running," I again ejaculated, "I just finished that book this morning."
There is another point to that paragrab besides my effortless existence at the cutting edge of our modern cultural dialog. There is a secular push back being seen in the society against the radicalization of religion. I've now heard five atheists on any sort of mass media in my entire fucking life - and I'm an atheist, so I tend to pay pretty close attention to my own kind. I'd say Phillip's book represents a major glove being thrown down by the established powers against the evags, and NPR's willingness to touch the topic (cuz they won't touch any topic that ain't green-lighted from on high after the castrations they've suffered in the last four years) show us something of that trend.
I'm all for it. I'm totally willing to be a partisan hack, a loyal soilder, the man who takes point on this expedition into enemy territory.
Let me launch our first excursion with another insight gleamed from said workplace situation. As the atheist professor filled his few minutes of airtime with meaningless, haughty statements, my co-worker began to elucidate to me the difference between having a certain level of understanding of the bible - and something to do with Jesus saying something about scriptures and then more scriptures- and having a 'relationship with Jesus.'
Now I have a pretty negative view of the economy, so I once again proved that I can act in my own short-term interest; I shut the fuck up.
Here is what I wanted to say: What if what you and so many of your fellow christians describe as a 'personal relationship with Jesus' is a perfectly normal emotional experience? What if what you feel to be the touch of the divine is actually nothing more than an output of chemicals within the brain which can be triggered by countless combinations of stimuli? I mean, it is powerful, nobody will deny that the experience of 'Jesus in your heart of hearts' is one of the most powerful emotional experiences one's likely to have, right up their with quality sex or the birth of a child; yet in the end it is a natural experience.
Think about it. There are thousands of other religions out there in the world, and you believe that every single one of them is full of shit. Yet every one of them, the fundementalist in particular, will describe transcendental spiritual experiences. They all believe that what they are feeling is the proximity of the breath of God - but you know that they are full of shit. So what they are feeling must just be a release of brain chemicals that they misunderstand to be the work of the spiritual.
There is no doubt that when heathen voodoo worshippers are shaking on the ground as the spirits of good and evil possess their bodies that they are totally wasting their time in a false faith. Yet the experience that grips them, the one that has them thrashing about to the beat of pagan drums, that powerful dumping of adrenaline and other groovy brain chemicals is real.
Perhaps you could ponder it from this direction. When we see movies, sometimes when the movie is good, we feel some pretty powerful emotions. The movies do not physically touch us in any way, and we don't take any chemicals into our bodies (well, most people don't), yet when Leonardo di Caprio's lifeless body slides down into the watery abbyss; I'm man enough to say I choked up. Even if Titanic didn't get to you, some movies have.
Ah, you say, but that's just a movie, not a spiritual experience! Wait! Just hold out with me for one more notion.
Those who study film or most other arts are familiar with the term - suspension of disbelief. This is the part of the human experience where we know that the droids and the lightsabres are not real, but we choose not to focus on that point for the next hour and a half. By shutting down a bit of the skeptical defenses in our brain we allow the movie to get in and have a more powerful effect. I'm sure you've seen movies that you sat through with the premeditated determination to hate (like with me and Tom Cruise movies), since you refused to let down your skeptical defenses, refused to suspend your disbelief, the film was powerless to engage your emotions.
I've heard that a hypnotist cannot hypnotise anyone who is determined not to be.
How many of our other social exchanges work in a similar manner? One must lower ones defenses and expose oneself somewhat in order to reap the social rewards of that interaction.
We are social creatures. Our species has survived, thrived, and now threatens to end life on earth because we have very powerfully evolved neurological mechanisms for rewarding social behavior. In order to achieve a longer, harder penis, one must lower one's natural skepticism and respond to some poorly typed spam. In order to grow into a full adult, one must lower one's defenses and enter into a mature relationship with a partner - fuck if that partner couldn't betray the very jewel of your soul and throw you in the gutter like trash, but sometimes they don't and the bonding pleasures your brain will release over time still staggers me on a daily basis. You have to take a chance and lower your skeptical defenses in order to engage the triggers in the brain that reinforce social behavior. When you buy a new vehical, you have to overcome your skeptical defenses and hope that even though this guy is both a used car salesman and Irish, he might be that one honest member of each group and that truck might actually be a fair deal. I'd say this social risk/reward paradigm be pretty universal.
So now we get around to your experience, my evag associate. Can we think back to our first born-again experience - cuz I still remember mine quite vividly. There is a strong social element. Suddenly I went from singing in a group with my eyes closed to being drawn up in front of a room of about fifty by a good-looking older man. Everyone's attention was focused on me in a way that I don't know if I had ever experienced before. Being in front of a crowd always invokes a lot of primitive reactions in our species, and I didn't have any Idea that this was coming. I'd only gone to this youth group to humor a friend (more than just humor, I needed every friend I could get at age 15) now all of a sudden I was in front of a whole group of people who professed to already have Jesus living in their hearts (I was raised catholic, so I thought the safe move was not to raise my hand when the preacher asked that question while we all had our eyes closed) , my heart was pounding like a jackhammer and I began to overheat as I struggled to control the shaking and not make myself look like more of an ass. I don't even remember the next few minutes, but all of a sudden all of these cool kids were patting me on the back and congratulating me - all of that uncontrollable stress response turned into a wash of victory endorphins.
We know that social situations can trigger powerful responses in our brains. Just like the movie, in order to experience the powerful emotions in an evag 'born again' session one has to lower one's defenses. How many phrases about being 'obedient to His voice' and 'opening your heart to Him' unpack with new meanings when you think about it like that. You can't experience Jesus in your Heart of Hearts until you believe; i.e. suspend your disbelief. You are encouraged to shut off every part of your developed consciousness that might have a problem with a super-powerful invisible being who only wants to see you happy and successful. A being that once destroyed the earth with a magical flood (that left zero record) and drowned millions, a being that dislikes gays and hates foreskins. Only when you shut off those portions of your brain can you get the wonderous payback in a groovy neurological cocktail of adrenaline, endorphins and serentonin. It's an awesome trip, and those preachers have been refining the quality of their shit for six thousand years.
I still think the rattlesnake christians, who would engage in a similar routine, but who also handled live rattlers since their true belief would protect them from venom got a better high - It's like weed vs. meth, one will turn you into a fucking retard, the other will lower your GPA by about .25.
The difference between movies and religion is similar, and equally harsh. Once the flick's over I stop believing in the Force and lightsabres, 'born agains' spend the rest of their life commited to their suspension of disbelief.
More thoughts on Kevin Phillips vis. a vie Iraq War
Here's a quote from Mr. Phillips' latest book, American Theocracy:
Defining American Petro-Imperialism
So today, after a few weeks of serious allegations of massacres on the part of U.S. soilders and more reports on gays and other minority groups being tortured to death with power-drill wielding deathsquads, I think that the best means of doing our part as a reponsible and responsive citizens lies in addressing why we are there.
First, I will yield nothing except acknowledgement (and contempt) for those who believe our actions in Iraq have something to do with 1. their religious text being completely right, 2. a conflict with the forces of evil a la the Left Behind series, 3. a quest to bring the 'good news' to those backward mohammadeans. They are about 35 - 45% of the electorate (and every one of the dumb motherfuckers votes), but they are not accessible to rational arguements so I will ignore them for now.
Secondly, the WMD explanation. I'd argue that this was more of a means to 'sell' the war to that other 10% than an actual motive force within the administration. Since we found none, and those of us who consume media outside of the corporate/state-run propaganda machines knew full well that they were never going to find any. O.K. that's not completely true. I heard over a hundred voices from Hans Blix, to Scott Ritter, to Tariq Ali - yet somewhere in the back of my mind I still thought that the neo-cons must know something I don't and that some small stash of chemical weapons might be found somewhere. Who could believe that they would just roll on into a country based on an outright lie? Yet now, we have the hindsight (and a shitload of articles from Rolling Stone, to the NYT, to the Downing Street Memos) to realize that, in fact, Bush rolled the dice on his claims of WMD - and the shooter needed snake-eyes.
But they couldn't lay off the WMD, cuz that's just the greatest fucking way to combine 'September the 11th' with 'Saddam Hussein.' One can read their talking points, and one can read between the lines.
Regardless, the lack of any said weapons further erodes our continued presence there.
Some folks talk about 'building democracy', but that's just childish. When in the history of any major power, has a victorious army set about invoking a democracy? Some dumbasses will bring up Japan and the Marshall Plan - yep, pretending the emperor had nothing to do with any war crimes and then using the population's loyalty to royalty while their island served as our 'super aircraft carrier in the pacific.' Yet that's just a bullshit comparison to begin with. What's happening in Iraq was a much more lop-sided competition of militarys and economies. All those years of sactions had Iraq with the weakest military in the middle east (of those larger than a postage stamp) and it took every ounce of brutality he and his boys had to just keep down the popular uprising. A better comparison for U.S. policy would be Indonesia or our proxy involvement in Central and South America over the last hundred years. Unfortuantely, most of the neo-cons are either ignorant or purposefully mute on these comparisions.
If we were really planning on 'planting the seeds of democracy', why did we not place enough troops to even come close to providing security? Why did we guard the Ministry of Oil while watching their museums and every other ministry building gutted by looters? Is that why they disbanded the Iraqi military and de-baathified? To make sure that everyone who had any sort of a successful life under Saddam would have nothing now - except a grudge and some automatic weapons? Why did Paul Bremer make damn sure that laws violating a man's right to organize into unions were kept on the books, when organized labor is such an obvious means of democratizing a population and working to overcome racial differences with the shared interests of their class? We know that the U.S. military is spending shitloads of our money to influence their press, and so the fact that said press continues to play up sectarian differences rather than downplay them - Every motherfucking colonizer knows that the secret to success be 'divide and conquer.'
There are those who feel that Israel had something to do with the calculus to invade Iraq. Aside from the racist shitheads who think every jew working in the New York got a phone call advising them to take some time off on September 10th, I don't see much logic in this one. I'd say it was more along the lines of the WMD tack. An invasion would please many in the pro-Israel lobby, but aside from telling them whatever was necessary to get a bit more support and donations I doubt they gave this angle too much thought.
So that only leaves this administrations first arguement, when they cutely proposed Operation: Iraqi Liberation (Karl Rove made them change it - but I'm sure he still thought it was a real zinger.)
[At this point Aurelius must pause to go to work. Like most Americans, his job requires transportation that consumes at least 2-3 gallons of gas per day. I'll continue this ramble on the other side.]
Defining American Petro-Imperialism
He proceeds this statement with this oft-echoed sentiment, ". . . Think of Iraq as a military base with a very large oil reserve underneath . . . you can't ask for better than that."
Old-fashioned colonialists, regal and unembarrassed, took physical control of territories, sent in ostrich-plumed governors, minted coins, and printed local postage stamps on which kings or queens gazed proudly over scenes of natives cutting cocoa pods or harvesting tea. By contrast, petro-imperialism - the key aspect of which is the U.S. military's transformation into a global oil-protection force - puts up a democratic facade, emphasizes freedom of the seas (or pipeline routes), and seeks to secure, protect, drill, and ship oil, not administer everyday affairs. Still, the way the United States has begun to organize its national security and military posture around oil is hardly new in spirit, albeit unprecedented in scope. (p. 78)
So today, after a few weeks of serious allegations of massacres on the part of U.S. soilders and more reports on gays and other minority groups being tortured to death with power-drill wielding deathsquads, I think that the best means of doing our part as a reponsible and responsive citizens lies in addressing why we are there.
First, I will yield nothing except acknowledgement (and contempt) for those who believe our actions in Iraq have something to do with 1. their religious text being completely right, 2. a conflict with the forces of evil a la the Left Behind series, 3. a quest to bring the 'good news' to those backward mohammadeans. They are about 35 - 45% of the electorate (and every one of the dumb motherfuckers votes), but they are not accessible to rational arguements so I will ignore them for now.
Secondly, the WMD explanation. I'd argue that this was more of a means to 'sell' the war to that other 10% than an actual motive force within the administration. Since we found none, and those of us who consume media outside of the corporate/state-run propaganda machines knew full well that they were never going to find any. O.K. that's not completely true. I heard over a hundred voices from Hans Blix, to Scott Ritter, to Tariq Ali - yet somewhere in the back of my mind I still thought that the neo-cons must know something I don't and that some small stash of chemical weapons might be found somewhere. Who could believe that they would just roll on into a country based on an outright lie? Yet now, we have the hindsight (and a shitload of articles from Rolling Stone, to the NYT, to the Downing Street Memos) to realize that, in fact, Bush rolled the dice on his claims of WMD - and the shooter needed snake-eyes.
But they couldn't lay off the WMD, cuz that's just the greatest fucking way to combine 'September the 11th' with 'Saddam Hussein.' One can read their talking points, and one can read between the lines.
Regardless, the lack of any said weapons further erodes our continued presence there.
Some folks talk about 'building democracy', but that's just childish. When in the history of any major power, has a victorious army set about invoking a democracy? Some dumbasses will bring up Japan and the Marshall Plan - yep, pretending the emperor had nothing to do with any war crimes and then using the population's loyalty to royalty while their island served as our 'super aircraft carrier in the pacific.' Yet that's just a bullshit comparison to begin with. What's happening in Iraq was a much more lop-sided competition of militarys and economies. All those years of sactions had Iraq with the weakest military in the middle east (of those larger than a postage stamp) and it took every ounce of brutality he and his boys had to just keep down the popular uprising. A better comparison for U.S. policy would be Indonesia or our proxy involvement in Central and South America over the last hundred years. Unfortuantely, most of the neo-cons are either ignorant or purposefully mute on these comparisions.
If we were really planning on 'planting the seeds of democracy', why did we not place enough troops to even come close to providing security? Why did we guard the Ministry of Oil while watching their museums and every other ministry building gutted by looters? Is that why they disbanded the Iraqi military and de-baathified? To make sure that everyone who had any sort of a successful life under Saddam would have nothing now - except a grudge and some automatic weapons? Why did Paul Bremer make damn sure that laws violating a man's right to organize into unions were kept on the books, when organized labor is such an obvious means of democratizing a population and working to overcome racial differences with the shared interests of their class? We know that the U.S. military is spending shitloads of our money to influence their press, and so the fact that said press continues to play up sectarian differences rather than downplay them - Every motherfucking colonizer knows that the secret to success be 'divide and conquer.'
There are those who feel that Israel had something to do with the calculus to invade Iraq. Aside from the racist shitheads who think every jew working in the New York got a phone call advising them to take some time off on September 10th, I don't see much logic in this one. I'd say it was more along the lines of the WMD tack. An invasion would please many in the pro-Israel lobby, but aside from telling them whatever was necessary to get a bit more support and donations I doubt they gave this angle too much thought.
So that only leaves this administrations first arguement, when they cutely proposed Operation: Iraqi Liberation (Karl Rove made them change it - but I'm sure he still thought it was a real zinger.)
[At this point Aurelius must pause to go to work. Like most Americans, his job requires transportation that consumes at least 2-3 gallons of gas per day. I'll continue this ramble on the other side.]
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
New Moon, New Cycle
Been almost a week since last I blogged. I place the blame squarely on the shoulders of Kevin Phillips' work American Theocracy. Damn, that book has truly fleshed out much of my understanding of the political progression of this country since the civil war. This is a guy who was a republican stratagist, so his historical intrest has less to do with the ideologies of this political progression, and more with who won the elections and how.
He also draws some frightening parallels betwixt various countries at the height of their empire (England, the Dutch, the Boers, Spain) that reveled in the religious notion that they were 'The Chosen Peoples.' Apparently, the Israelites and the Americans are not the only nation to indulge in this opinion. Anti-gay sentiment, religious intolerance towards science, the merger of hawkish militarism and religious worship - I guess this ain't nothing new.
In particular, he does a great job invoking a level of comprehension regarding 'the south' that a Minnesotan like myself just ain't likely to get my head from the usual learning curve in the school of life. He's got these graphics representing the frequency in local phonebooks of companies having the name 'Southern' vs. 'American' and the alignment with red/blue states is staggering. Add to this regionalism a super-charged Southern Baptist Convention - what Phillips refers to as 'the State Church of the Confederacy' - not a happy picture.
That same graphic of the fifty states has an uneven triangle lying along the canadian border with one point running down the Mississippi in Iowa. This little section of about five states represents lands where the influence of Luthernism held dominance. What a trip.
As an atheist, I guess I've always held on to some looney little faith that, if people would just think about reality for a while, maybe indulge in a bit of rebellious behavior, the sway of religion would dissipate. Phillips' analysis of the SBC has challenged that faith in me. This is a religion that can be best understood as a social virus. Number one priority is reproduction and the spread of their dogmatic material. Their zeal for evangelism remains their greatest motive force, and makes a lot of sense from an 'evolutionary' kind of world-view. Religions gain their power and their authority from having a large number of followers, many breeds of christianity have come and gone in our country in the last few hundred years. Those which possess the greatest tactics for evangelism, are the ones that will thrive. Others' like the Shakers, are doomed to extinction as their slice of the christian population pie gets thinner.
The SBC is all about evangelism. These poor fucks believe that nothing is more important than 'saving souls.' I think this represents the greatest clash with the Liberalism which I continue to find more and more respect for. Liberalism is kinda based on the notion that some of the problems in society - poverty, drug abuse, child abuse - can be minimized with the wise application of changes to that society. These evags think that society's ills can only be properly addressed by getting everyone to accept Jesus into their heart. Honestly, I've now come to believe that when my evag associates see a homeless man on the street begging for change, they see him as a man who is needlessly suffering; if only he would accept Jesus as his personal savior and be obedient to Him then Jesus would take care of him somehow.
Anything that interfers with the mission of being missionaries is bad in the SBC. The virus must spread as rapidly as possible. Questions of dogma or the integrity of political and religious leaders interfers with the spread and is therefore bad.
Today is the New Moon. I'm hoping to transform myself into a more productive phase. I've read well over a thousand pages in the last five days, I have inhaled - now may I exhale.
On a lighter note, my brother and his family are still having their wacky adventures on the other side of the planet. I guess a few days ago they tried to take a car out into the countryside, but had to turn back when they were attacked by a pack of monkies. I can't wait to see the pictures of that!
He also draws some frightening parallels betwixt various countries at the height of their empire (England, the Dutch, the Boers, Spain) that reveled in the religious notion that they were 'The Chosen Peoples.' Apparently, the Israelites and the Americans are not the only nation to indulge in this opinion. Anti-gay sentiment, religious intolerance towards science, the merger of hawkish militarism and religious worship - I guess this ain't nothing new.
In particular, he does a great job invoking a level of comprehension regarding 'the south' that a Minnesotan like myself just ain't likely to get my head from the usual learning curve in the school of life. He's got these graphics representing the frequency in local phonebooks of companies having the name 'Southern' vs. 'American' and the alignment with red/blue states is staggering. Add to this regionalism a super-charged Southern Baptist Convention - what Phillips refers to as 'the State Church of the Confederacy' - not a happy picture.
That same graphic of the fifty states has an uneven triangle lying along the canadian border with one point running down the Mississippi in Iowa. This little section of about five states represents lands where the influence of Luthernism held dominance. What a trip.
As an atheist, I guess I've always held on to some looney little faith that, if people would just think about reality for a while, maybe indulge in a bit of rebellious behavior, the sway of religion would dissipate. Phillips' analysis of the SBC has challenged that faith in me. This is a religion that can be best understood as a social virus. Number one priority is reproduction and the spread of their dogmatic material. Their zeal for evangelism remains their greatest motive force, and makes a lot of sense from an 'evolutionary' kind of world-view. Religions gain their power and their authority from having a large number of followers, many breeds of christianity have come and gone in our country in the last few hundred years. Those which possess the greatest tactics for evangelism, are the ones that will thrive. Others' like the Shakers, are doomed to extinction as their slice of the christian population pie gets thinner.
The SBC is all about evangelism. These poor fucks believe that nothing is more important than 'saving souls.' I think this represents the greatest clash with the Liberalism which I continue to find more and more respect for. Liberalism is kinda based on the notion that some of the problems in society - poverty, drug abuse, child abuse - can be minimized with the wise application of changes to that society. These evags think that society's ills can only be properly addressed by getting everyone to accept Jesus into their heart. Honestly, I've now come to believe that when my evag associates see a homeless man on the street begging for change, they see him as a man who is needlessly suffering; if only he would accept Jesus as his personal savior and be obedient to Him then Jesus would take care of him somehow.
Anything that interfers with the mission of being missionaries is bad in the SBC. The virus must spread as rapidly as possible. Questions of dogma or the integrity of political and religious leaders interfers with the spread and is therefore bad.
Today is the New Moon. I'm hoping to transform myself into a more productive phase. I've read well over a thousand pages in the last five days, I have inhaled - now may I exhale.
On a lighter note, my brother and his family are still having their wacky adventures on the other side of the planet. I guess a few days ago they tried to take a car out into the countryside, but had to turn back when they were attacked by a pack of monkies. I can't wait to see the pictures of that!
Thursday, March 23, 2006
Aurelius Joins the Tom Cruise Boycott!
My Brothers and Sisters, I am here to tell you that I - just now! - have just learned about the courageous acts of our brethern in revolution, our brethren over at Comedy Central and South Park. It seems that some over at Comedy Central have bowed to the pressure of wacko scientologists and have pulled their show lampooning Tom Cruise and scientology. It seems that Mr. Cruise himself has decided to threaten the Viacom corportation with a less than enthusiastic endorsement of 'Mission Impossible III: the return of dumbshit' if they repeated said South Park episode. It seems Isaac Hayes, himself a scientologist (are they everywhere?!?) quite the show after like five years cuz ripping on 'someone's religious views just ain't O.K.'
Have you seen the catholic bashing South Park episode? That one has a statue of the Virgin Mary shooting blood out of her asshole and various catholic clergy declaring it a miracle. That apparently didn't bother Mr. Hayes any, but when the criticism's pointed another direction. . .
I say, we should all join in this boycott of Tom Cruise's movies and not just until one corporation decides to rule in favor of one interest group over another. We should join in this boycott because Tom Cruise is a fucking idiot and the taboo against criticising someone's religion needs to be challenged. I've now read at least a dozen article regarding Scientology as well as had a few up close and personal experiences with the group after inviting one of their missionaries into my apartment and buying (and reading) Dyanetics. It's all shit. The basis of the world-view is stupid, trite science fiction, and the group behaves in a manner that satisfies every definition of cult. I know cults are hard for the individual to escape from, but for the outside observer their pretty easy to I.D.
Scientologists make true every right-wing rant about Hollywood types who are full of themselves and dangerously delusional.
I'm tired of wackos, and pedophiles, and my class enemies hiding behind religion. Fuck that. There are plenty of religious folks out there giving their ever-fucking lives to the movement, trying to make the world a better place. They don't deserve to be dragged down into the same vile shit that these types dwell in.
The taboo against mocking someone's religion needs to end! I know, it ain't nice to be on the receiving end, but this country IS a democracy and dammit we need to be able to discuss the issues of the day so we can elect leaders who might do something other than line the pockets of their friends with taxpayer largess. We can't prepare for the challenges of tommorow when forty percent of our population is raising their children to doubt the scientific method.
I hate to be the one to make the rules for my society, but I think we can all agree that when we are debating politics, the ravings of some cultist about the end of the world as only he understands it does not contribute to the cause. Since regulating religions would be far too obtrusive for my liberal tastes (and feed into their whole 'persecution' complex) we just need to have some agreed upon facts that we can use to divide the dangerous radicals from the productivly religious.
I want to stress my respect for the legitimate religons and their followers. The areas of morality, philosophy, social justice, and so many others would not be what they are today if not for the considerable contributions of those whom I would disagree with regarding theism. From Mother Theresa to those four members of the CPT captured in Iraq - I may not understand their motivations but I respect their actions. Folks like that deserve, and have, my respect.
I know that it is a hard thing to have to be the judge of. Who am I, who are we to decide whose beliefs are valid and who needs to be forcibly restrained and deprogrammed? Yet what I hesistate to do on an interpersonal level must be done at the society based level.
What should some of these guides be? I'd love some input here. What 'facts' are we to embrace as a nation and insist are inculcated into all of the members of our society. I'd say that an understanding of science, thus an appreciation for how it has been set up to minimize the chances for distorted statements about reality (nobody claims science is 100% all the time, but it is a open system where Ideas need to be supported with reproducible facts, and those who do scam the system pay a price.)
Another guideline I'd suggest would regard the belief that the bible is 'perfect' or 'inerrant word of God.' This may seem subtle, but I've found it is a sustained notion behind almost all of the radical christians I've encountered. It is completely baseless notion. When interacting with someone who posits this position one can quickly assume that he or she has had a great majority of their world view supplied by individuals who knowingly and purposefully lied to them. I'm sure there are plenty of lesser evags who spread this myth with the smooth confidence of someone who has had thier critical thinking skills dulled down to butter knife sharpness, but any educated student of the bible knows this view is totally rediculous.
This view must be challenge, we have the same obligation to do so that binds us to inform the spasming, babbling 'born-again' in the throes of 'the holy ghost' that what he is actually doing is indulging in mass hysteria.
As Voltaire said: 'Those who get us to believe absurdities can get us to perform atrocities.'
Word. May we let Mr. Cruise be the first of many wackos we simply turn our backs on; as we look towards a better future for us all.
Have you seen the catholic bashing South Park episode? That one has a statue of the Virgin Mary shooting blood out of her asshole and various catholic clergy declaring it a miracle. That apparently didn't bother Mr. Hayes any, but when the criticism's pointed another direction. . .
I say, we should all join in this boycott of Tom Cruise's movies and not just until one corporation decides to rule in favor of one interest group over another. We should join in this boycott because Tom Cruise is a fucking idiot and the taboo against criticising someone's religion needs to be challenged. I've now read at least a dozen article regarding Scientology as well as had a few up close and personal experiences with the group after inviting one of their missionaries into my apartment and buying (and reading) Dyanetics. It's all shit. The basis of the world-view is stupid, trite science fiction, and the group behaves in a manner that satisfies every definition of cult. I know cults are hard for the individual to escape from, but for the outside observer their pretty easy to I.D.
Scientologists make true every right-wing rant about Hollywood types who are full of themselves and dangerously delusional.
I'm tired of wackos, and pedophiles, and my class enemies hiding behind religion. Fuck that. There are plenty of religious folks out there giving their ever-fucking lives to the movement, trying to make the world a better place. They don't deserve to be dragged down into the same vile shit that these types dwell in.
The taboo against mocking someone's religion needs to end! I know, it ain't nice to be on the receiving end, but this country IS a democracy and dammit we need to be able to discuss the issues of the day so we can elect leaders who might do something other than line the pockets of their friends with taxpayer largess. We can't prepare for the challenges of tommorow when forty percent of our population is raising their children to doubt the scientific method.
I hate to be the one to make the rules for my society, but I think we can all agree that when we are debating politics, the ravings of some cultist about the end of the world as only he understands it does not contribute to the cause. Since regulating religions would be far too obtrusive for my liberal tastes (and feed into their whole 'persecution' complex) we just need to have some agreed upon facts that we can use to divide the dangerous radicals from the productivly religious.
I want to stress my respect for the legitimate religons and their followers. The areas of morality, philosophy, social justice, and so many others would not be what they are today if not for the considerable contributions of those whom I would disagree with regarding theism. From Mother Theresa to those four members of the CPT captured in Iraq - I may not understand their motivations but I respect their actions. Folks like that deserve, and have, my respect.
I know that it is a hard thing to have to be the judge of. Who am I, who are we to decide whose beliefs are valid and who needs to be forcibly restrained and deprogrammed? Yet what I hesistate to do on an interpersonal level must be done at the society based level.
What should some of these guides be? I'd love some input here. What 'facts' are we to embrace as a nation and insist are inculcated into all of the members of our society. I'd say that an understanding of science, thus an appreciation for how it has been set up to minimize the chances for distorted statements about reality (nobody claims science is 100% all the time, but it is a open system where Ideas need to be supported with reproducible facts, and those who do scam the system pay a price.)
Another guideline I'd suggest would regard the belief that the bible is 'perfect' or 'inerrant word of God.' This may seem subtle, but I've found it is a sustained notion behind almost all of the radical christians I've encountered. It is completely baseless notion. When interacting with someone who posits this position one can quickly assume that he or she has had a great majority of their world view supplied by individuals who knowingly and purposefully lied to them. I'm sure there are plenty of lesser evags who spread this myth with the smooth confidence of someone who has had thier critical thinking skills dulled down to butter knife sharpness, but any educated student of the bible knows this view is totally rediculous.
This view must be challenge, we have the same obligation to do so that binds us to inform the spasming, babbling 'born-again' in the throes of 'the holy ghost' that what he is actually doing is indulging in mass hysteria.
As Voltaire said: 'Those who get us to believe absurdities can get us to perform atrocities.'
Word. May we let Mr. Cruise be the first of many wackos we simply turn our backs on; as we look towards a better future for us all.
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
Aurelius' Reading List
I just picked up two excellent books and will be devoting a fair amount of my freetime to reading them.
Misquoting Jesus by Bart D. Ehrman, a once 'born again' christian who learned to doubt the inerrancy of scripture via his growing scholarship of the New Testament. This is the book that all of my evag acquaintances will be receiving this next summer solstice. Filled with sharp facts for poking holes in lame ass world-views.
Kevin Phillips (yep the same Kevin Phillips who wrote 'the republican bible' to earn his place in the Nixon administration) latest, American Theocracy : The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century. According to him, real republicans hate George W, and what his ineptitude and fanaticism have done to our country. He's also willing to set aside the usual taboo about criticising another's religion - they have it coming.
Both are proving to be excellent reads. Hopefully I return to the blogosphere like the phoenix, reborn in flame to blaze a trail of truth and a burning plume of searing words strung together with the righteous power of . . .
Yeah,
Misquoting Jesus by Bart D. Ehrman, a once 'born again' christian who learned to doubt the inerrancy of scripture via his growing scholarship of the New Testament. This is the book that all of my evag acquaintances will be receiving this next summer solstice. Filled with sharp facts for poking holes in lame ass world-views.
Kevin Phillips (yep the same Kevin Phillips who wrote 'the republican bible' to earn his place in the Nixon administration) latest, American Theocracy : The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century. According to him, real republicans hate George W, and what his ineptitude and fanaticism have done to our country. He's also willing to set aside the usual taboo about criticising another's religion - they have it coming.
Both are proving to be excellent reads. Hopefully I return to the blogosphere like the phoenix, reborn in flame to blaze a trail of truth and a burning plume of searing words strung together with the righteous power of . . .
Yeah,
Sunday, March 19, 2006
V for Vendetta
Remember, remember, the fifth of November. . .
Just got back from seeing the Wackowski Brother's latest film, V for Vendetta. It's all good. If you are an Angry American, if you can't stand what's happening in our country, if you see red every time some fucking politician brings up 9/11 in a speech - see this movie.
It is a helluva flick. If this gets people talking, then we're closer to something good in America than we've been since Thomas Paine started distributing Common Sense. There were so many scenes where I was just thinking 'hell yeah, I can't believe their discussing this. . .'
I read one review that referred to the flick as 'a monumental work of genius.' I have to say that I don't believe that statement to be hyperbole.
Just got back from seeing the Wackowski Brother's latest film, V for Vendetta. It's all good. If you are an Angry American, if you can't stand what's happening in our country, if you see red every time some fucking politician brings up 9/11 in a speech - see this movie.
It is a helluva flick. If this gets people talking, then we're closer to something good in America than we've been since Thomas Paine started distributing Common Sense. There were so many scenes where I was just thinking 'hell yeah, I can't believe their discussing this. . .'
I read one review that referred to the flick as 'a monumental work of genius.' I have to say that I don't believe that statement to be hyperbole.
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Still dwelling on the Libertine
Well, there is another fuck load of snow on the ground, so I'll have to leave this past-time to pick up a shovel as soon as I see the plow go by. Can't wait to spend an hour shoveling just so I can spend another hour sitting in traffic. Well, whatever, life is full of both the bitter and the sweet. I'm no fortunate son, I've got no reason to expect nothing but pleasure from this world. A little hard work is good for my kind.
I've got one last thought on the Libertine. Throughout that movie other characters remark on how talented he is. This is largely a trait which the viewers are supposed to accept without much evidence, as Mr. Depp's character spends the entirety of the film drunk off of his ass. Somewhere I heard a quote once about charming people, how they live the most outrageous lives possible - right at the edge of their charm. The limit of what people will tolerate, that's the line they flirt with as the moth is seduced by the candle.
But what is charming? What is this wit that some possess? Why is such wit so often paired with a certain breed of egomania and self-centeredness?
What if we took the long view. Everyone who has been around a small child knows that they have a powerful need to be the center of attention. Even as we grow older, that primitive drive never goes away. Few short term pleasures can compare with the sense of power and importance one derives from having the fixed attention of other human beings on you. When people are really listening, when they really seem focused on you; that's all good.
So we assume that as the human brain developes it observes the world around it, and the individuals in that world, for the purpose of increasing the amount of time we get what we want. Since most of the human brains that have ever existed were most concerned with survival, we can assume that these traits are rather well honed - natural selection making it hard for the slow learners to breed. Yet in our American bubble, only the Boy Scouts and a few weeks of 'don't get into cars with strangers' ever touches the life vein of survival in our children. Perhaps these powerful adaptive tools are then applied to the slightly more mundane. The skills which make one the center of attention.
As an aside, one could easily argue that the skills which make one the center of attention would have incredible value from an evoluntionary standpoint. Improved social ties improve the odds the entire group might survive, and also improve the odds that the charming one will be one the winning side of inter-group conflict. Also, the more popular members will have a better selection of potential mates.
Therefore the young human mind observes others and selectively mimics behavior. When one observes a good storyteller - silently watching with green eyes as a group forms around her to hang on her every word - one will attempt to copy her behavior. Sometimes the young mind steals the entire story. Sometimes only a hint of the cadence or a sweeping manner of gesticulation is added to one's toolbox. With Trial and Error, along with Mimicry, the developing mind hones the skill set focused on gaining and retaining 'center of attention.' The screaming infant becomes the the precocious little girl with confident poise and vibrant imagination.
[This mimicry of storytelling tactics can be observed most clearly in the 'testimonials' of evags. As a particular form of storytelling within a rather stagnant subculture, the mental 'cut & paste' processes are easily identified. This is one of the powerful forms of social reinforcement they use to get themselves off; center of attention is guaranteed as long as they stay within the guidelines and hit most of the major themes of 'salvation.' There is also another form of story the evags love, I call it the 'I've seen/heard about god's ultimate power on earth.' So and so fell off a ladder but survived. . . My uncle was in an accident and the doctors told him he was going to die but . . . The repetitive patterns are amusing to observe.]
If this precocious child grows up in the right type of culture, she may find that other, 'higher' forms of communication serve the desire to be 'center of attention' with even greater utility. The star of the school play or the talented musician both get a lot of attention. Often, even the sexual form of attention, one of my personal favorites. Into these classes of higher forms, one must place literature, and here the parallel to storytelling remains the most clear.
For someone like the Earl of Rochester, his only concern is with garnering the attention of a very small slice of society. The more he reads and absorbs within the realm of English Literature, the better he becomes at reproducing a form of communication which holds folks attention. As the pool of knowledge he contains increases in depth and volume, the dawn of art may occur, where his creations are more than mere mimicry - and a reputation as a great man of letters be bestowed.
In summary, I have two questions/observations on the Libertine. How does the desire to be at the center of attention become the great works of a gifted poet? And secondly, how easily does this never-satiated infantile degrade into writing plays about dildos? Is he simply taking the cheapest shot at attention, or is he sacraficing himself on the cross of the public outrage to make a statement about the very nature of art and society?
I've got one last thought on the Libertine. Throughout that movie other characters remark on how talented he is. This is largely a trait which the viewers are supposed to accept without much evidence, as Mr. Depp's character spends the entirety of the film drunk off of his ass. Somewhere I heard a quote once about charming people, how they live the most outrageous lives possible - right at the edge of their charm. The limit of what people will tolerate, that's the line they flirt with as the moth is seduced by the candle.
But what is charming? What is this wit that some possess? Why is such wit so often paired with a certain breed of egomania and self-centeredness?
What if we took the long view. Everyone who has been around a small child knows that they have a powerful need to be the center of attention. Even as we grow older, that primitive drive never goes away. Few short term pleasures can compare with the sense of power and importance one derives from having the fixed attention of other human beings on you. When people are really listening, when they really seem focused on you; that's all good.
So we assume that as the human brain developes it observes the world around it, and the individuals in that world, for the purpose of increasing the amount of time we get what we want. Since most of the human brains that have ever existed were most concerned with survival, we can assume that these traits are rather well honed - natural selection making it hard for the slow learners to breed. Yet in our American bubble, only the Boy Scouts and a few weeks of 'don't get into cars with strangers' ever touches the life vein of survival in our children. Perhaps these powerful adaptive tools are then applied to the slightly more mundane. The skills which make one the center of attention.
As an aside, one could easily argue that the skills which make one the center of attention would have incredible value from an evoluntionary standpoint. Improved social ties improve the odds the entire group might survive, and also improve the odds that the charming one will be one the winning side of inter-group conflict. Also, the more popular members will have a better selection of potential mates.
Therefore the young human mind observes others and selectively mimics behavior. When one observes a good storyteller - silently watching with green eyes as a group forms around her to hang on her every word - one will attempt to copy her behavior. Sometimes the young mind steals the entire story. Sometimes only a hint of the cadence or a sweeping manner of gesticulation is added to one's toolbox. With Trial and Error, along with Mimicry, the developing mind hones the skill set focused on gaining and retaining 'center of attention.' The screaming infant becomes the the precocious little girl with confident poise and vibrant imagination.
[This mimicry of storytelling tactics can be observed most clearly in the 'testimonials' of evags. As a particular form of storytelling within a rather stagnant subculture, the mental 'cut & paste' processes are easily identified. This is one of the powerful forms of social reinforcement they use to get themselves off; center of attention is guaranteed as long as they stay within the guidelines and hit most of the major themes of 'salvation.' There is also another form of story the evags love, I call it the 'I've seen/heard about god's ultimate power on earth.' So and so fell off a ladder but survived. . . My uncle was in an accident and the doctors told him he was going to die but . . . The repetitive patterns are amusing to observe.]
If this precocious child grows up in the right type of culture, she may find that other, 'higher' forms of communication serve the desire to be 'center of attention' with even greater utility. The star of the school play or the talented musician both get a lot of attention. Often, even the sexual form of attention, one of my personal favorites. Into these classes of higher forms, one must place literature, and here the parallel to storytelling remains the most clear.
For someone like the Earl of Rochester, his only concern is with garnering the attention of a very small slice of society. The more he reads and absorbs within the realm of English Literature, the better he becomes at reproducing a form of communication which holds folks attention. As the pool of knowledge he contains increases in depth and volume, the dawn of art may occur, where his creations are more than mere mimicry - and a reputation as a great man of letters be bestowed.
In summary, I have two questions/observations on the Libertine. How does the desire to be at the center of attention become the great works of a gifted poet? And secondly, how easily does this never-satiated infantile degrade into writing plays about dildos? Is he simply taking the cheapest shot at attention, or is he sacraficing himself on the cross of the public outrage to make a statement about the very nature of art and society?
Sunday, March 12, 2006
The Libertine
Cindy and I went out to the local movie house to see Johnny Depp's latest, 'The Libertine.' We are both fans of Mr. Depp, and the Idea of a film based on libertinism just sounded too good to miss. I read a few reviews that were only so-so, but we went and saw it anyway.
I believe the movie delivered, based on three characteristics. The remarkable attention to filthy detail that was invested in the setting, Johnny Depp's performance, and the few scenes whereby some hints of the libertine philosophy shown through.
In a way this movie was not a movie at all. Instead of telling a story or resolving some conflict, this is more of just a dreamlike peak into a lost world. Did people really have orgies in the fog wrapped parks of London? Did the King of England really season his royal statements with the word 'fucking?' Was all of England completely fixated on sex? In a way this was similar to the libertine philosophy of doing/saying whatever one desires without reservation or thought of consequences.
In another scene Rochester informs a character that 'Life is not a series of important nows, it is a long dribble of why-should-I's. The motive force for living and enjoying life seems to be dead in him.
The movie barely touches on the atheism of Libertinism, cutting short a deathbed scene that left the protagonist's position undefined. He makes references to a diety in a few examples of his flowery speech, but one cannot really infer much about his atheism; either what drives it or how the majority of society deals with it. Still the darkest of taboos.
In a way, the movie's rather unpleasant lesson on the fate of such a man becomes lost as a morality tale because he is so unique. Libertinism, as protrayed here, is a variety of depression or boredom with life that only the spoiled child of aristocracy can afford to indulge in. In fact, the movie and the Earl's life are only brought to the levels of debauchery that might hold our attention because he was even more rarely endowed. As the historical character and Johnny Depp's portrayal merge, we have a being who not only possess social rank - he also enjoys talent, frighteningly good looks, and the affections of Charles II. We cannot learn from the mistakes of the Libertine's over indulgences because we could not make such errors ourselves even if we wanted to. It is like watching a film about a tragic man who dies from some incredibly rare heriditary illness. It can't possibly happen to us, so identifying with the character can be difficult.
Finally, the movie does give us a glimpse of the lives of noblemen in the 1600's. In the area of setting, the film's right on. From the nastiness of the muddy streets and unpleasantness of a ride in a horse-drawn carraige, to the beating a servent with a cane or the surprising willingness for virtually every female character to barter for her slit; these images are repeated enough to become normative. Particularily the females, every one of them seemed to considered prostitution as their part-time job. This was the theatre, and the priviledges of the ruling class were plentiful.
All in all, the movie got me thinking and has eluded my capacity to neatly summarize. I guess that means it's art.
I believe the movie delivered, based on three characteristics. The remarkable attention to filthy detail that was invested in the setting, Johnny Depp's performance, and the few scenes whereby some hints of the libertine philosophy shown through.
In a way this movie was not a movie at all. Instead of telling a story or resolving some conflict, this is more of just a dreamlike peak into a lost world. Did people really have orgies in the fog wrapped parks of London? Did the King of England really season his royal statements with the word 'fucking?' Was all of England completely fixated on sex? In a way this was similar to the libertine philosophy of doing/saying whatever one desires without reservation or thought of consequences.
In another scene Rochester informs a character that 'Life is not a series of important nows, it is a long dribble of why-should-I's. The motive force for living and enjoying life seems to be dead in him.
The movie barely touches on the atheism of Libertinism, cutting short a deathbed scene that left the protagonist's position undefined. He makes references to a diety in a few examples of his flowery speech, but one cannot really infer much about his atheism; either what drives it or how the majority of society deals with it. Still the darkest of taboos.
In a way, the movie's rather unpleasant lesson on the fate of such a man becomes lost as a morality tale because he is so unique. Libertinism, as protrayed here, is a variety of depression or boredom with life that only the spoiled child of aristocracy can afford to indulge in. In fact, the movie and the Earl's life are only brought to the levels of debauchery that might hold our attention because he was even more rarely endowed. As the historical character and Johnny Depp's portrayal merge, we have a being who not only possess social rank - he also enjoys talent, frighteningly good looks, and the affections of Charles II. We cannot learn from the mistakes of the Libertine's over indulgences because we could not make such errors ourselves even if we wanted to. It is like watching a film about a tragic man who dies from some incredibly rare heriditary illness. It can't possibly happen to us, so identifying with the character can be difficult.
Finally, the movie does give us a glimpse of the lives of noblemen in the 1600's. In the area of setting, the film's right on. From the nastiness of the muddy streets and unpleasantness of a ride in a horse-drawn carraige, to the beating a servent with a cane or the surprising willingness for virtually every female character to barter for her slit; these images are repeated enough to become normative. Particularily the females, every one of them seemed to considered prostitution as their part-time job. This was the theatre, and the priviledges of the ruling class were plentiful.
All in all, the movie got me thinking and has eluded my capacity to neatly summarize. I guess that means it's art.
Saturday, March 11, 2006
My theory on Male / Female relationships & Climate
With International Woman's Day just a few days behind us, and the energy in the air that our enlightened friends in the fairer sex are applying to the rising threat against their bodies; thoughts of gender be on my mind. Why do some societies seem to have such smooth relationships with their women, and others such rigid, forcefully controlling models?
Many liberals take the point of view that, thanks to the powerful effects of our stupendous ideology, western society has evolved into something superior. An improved lot for women and a better level of interaction with them are some of the many blessings that liberalism has bestowed upon our culture. Africa or the Middle East, still in the grips of religious fundamentalism and the sort of fascism that dictatorships cull, has fallen behind us. Their women suffer for it.
These liberals could not be more wrong. Interaction between males and females has nothing to do with the ideology of the culture. It has to do with climate.
In the northern climes, it is pretty damn cold. When the frigid winds cut down to the bone, and your hands have had no feeling for hours as you work outside - at night you cuddle with your woman. This is not a matter of emotional choice, it is a matter of simple survival. The female body generates a lot of heat. Beautiful, warm, life giving heat.
Yet this body heat has another human being inside of it. Pressed up against each other, one accomidates, shares secrets, teases and appreciates. The simple build up of neuro-chemicals and strengthening of associations that we call emotional bonding (or love) goes on all night when a pair share a coccon of warmth.
This bonding mellows the masculine like a few years in oak does for whisky. It doesn't affect potency, just makes it more palatable.
In the hotter regions, a couple's nocternal postering could not be more different. Hot and sticky, the last thing an individual would want to do is lay next to another overheated mammel. A distance is sought between sleep partners, sometimes even sleeping in seperate rooms or beds. Even after sex, another powerful bonding situation, the partners in a hot clime are going to want to seperate bodies quickly. This is more condusive to personal introspection than to interpersonal bonding.
This necessary seperation at night leads to the creation of artificial rules of seperation in the society. Religions, as they are inclined to do, are filled with individuals who find it in their best interests to reinforce these artificial rules as a means of increasing their own position as an authority. Seperation and artificial rules make women into things.
So now Matisyahu won't stage dive or sign autographs for female fans, because his religon came out of a region where it was just too damn hot to cuddle.
So in the end Minnesota remains the greatest place in the world to live. We have some long cold winters where cuddling and preserving body heat is often the only goal you can have. We also have some hot, humid summers where one's own individual consciousness can simmer. We enjoy the kind of bonding that only an elbow in face at 2 A.M. can truly express, yet there is that brief summer of joyous color and reinforced individualism. We don't cuddle too much, that would make us wussy. As in so many things, it is within the cycle that we find insight.
I just had a songbird steal my attention. A single red cardinal in a tree full of browns. I'm not so sure what his little song was about, but I'd guess he's rapping, 'Awh, yeah, babys' you all know you want what Big Red's got going on over here! I got what you need! The scarlet train of pleasure is fueled and ready, get on over here and take a ride! Awh, yeah! Awh, yeah!'
Many liberals take the point of view that, thanks to the powerful effects of our stupendous ideology, western society has evolved into something superior. An improved lot for women and a better level of interaction with them are some of the many blessings that liberalism has bestowed upon our culture. Africa or the Middle East, still in the grips of religious fundamentalism and the sort of fascism that dictatorships cull, has fallen behind us. Their women suffer for it.
These liberals could not be more wrong. Interaction between males and females has nothing to do with the ideology of the culture. It has to do with climate.
In the northern climes, it is pretty damn cold. When the frigid winds cut down to the bone, and your hands have had no feeling for hours as you work outside - at night you cuddle with your woman. This is not a matter of emotional choice, it is a matter of simple survival. The female body generates a lot of heat. Beautiful, warm, life giving heat.
Yet this body heat has another human being inside of it. Pressed up against each other, one accomidates, shares secrets, teases and appreciates. The simple build up of neuro-chemicals and strengthening of associations that we call emotional bonding (or love) goes on all night when a pair share a coccon of warmth.
This bonding mellows the masculine like a few years in oak does for whisky. It doesn't affect potency, just makes it more palatable.
In the hotter regions, a couple's nocternal postering could not be more different. Hot and sticky, the last thing an individual would want to do is lay next to another overheated mammel. A distance is sought between sleep partners, sometimes even sleeping in seperate rooms or beds. Even after sex, another powerful bonding situation, the partners in a hot clime are going to want to seperate bodies quickly. This is more condusive to personal introspection than to interpersonal bonding.
This necessary seperation at night leads to the creation of artificial rules of seperation in the society. Religions, as they are inclined to do, are filled with individuals who find it in their best interests to reinforce these artificial rules as a means of increasing their own position as an authority. Seperation and artificial rules make women into things.
So now Matisyahu won't stage dive or sign autographs for female fans, because his religon came out of a region where it was just too damn hot to cuddle.
So in the end Minnesota remains the greatest place in the world to live. We have some long cold winters where cuddling and preserving body heat is often the only goal you can have. We also have some hot, humid summers where one's own individual consciousness can simmer. We enjoy the kind of bonding that only an elbow in face at 2 A.M. can truly express, yet there is that brief summer of joyous color and reinforced individualism. We don't cuddle too much, that would make us wussy. As in so many things, it is within the cycle that we find insight.
I just had a songbird steal my attention. A single red cardinal in a tree full of browns. I'm not so sure what his little song was about, but I'd guess he's rapping, 'Awh, yeah, babys' you all know you want what Big Red's got going on over here! I got what you need! The scarlet train of pleasure is fueled and ready, get on over here and take a ride! Awh, yeah! Awh, yeah!'
Thursday, March 09, 2006
The Way of the Wolf
My friend C- has got me reading book one of The Vampire Earth series by E. E. Knight. I did study Literature, but sometimes one just enjoys the pacing and predictability of pulp fiction. (Actually, I'd say that part of what makes something 'pulp' fiction in the age of Tarrentino, might be more accurately described as unpredictable predictability - but whatever.) It's a book with a lot of cliches: alien vampires have taken over the planet, good aliens will work some 'magic' on some of the resistors to make them special - sort of like a totem thing, combined with classic war novel violence and loss. Dispite all this, there be one kernal of wisdom that, like the higher forms of literature, has stuck in my head and continues to get me thinking.
As the protagonist is getting some of his 'magic' applied to him, changing him from a human soilder into a 'wolf', his shamen says somethings to him regarding the value of hate. "Your cultural histories are filled with tales of the reluctant hero who takes up arm to fight evils, only to win and then return to his simple farm and family. A valient warrior who fights bravely and shows mercy to his fallen foes. This is an O.K. image for a society that needs to downplay violence and domesticate the males, but one must break through this to embrace true hate. It is O.K. to hate the [evil vampire aliens.] Your species is being eaten!" (This is my paraphrase.)
This got me to thinking about how true that is. Revolutionary women, the proud young blacks who gave their lives for the Black Power Movement, even those few fucking democrats who criticise this current administration; all are/were labled 'angry.' As if being angry somehow had some bearing on whether or not that movement was in the right.
We are in a class war that's been raging for at least a few hundred years if not a few thousand. Those who some would call the ruling class or the elites have made purposeful descision to affect the lives and environment that we all develope in. Five or six decades ago men of my class (regardless of skin color, although us whites obviously had it somewhat better) had little rights at all. You worked in the mine or the factory or the stockyard. If a saw took your hand or mine dust killed ya by thirty five, well that was just too fucking bad. If god or anybody else cared then you would have been born with money to avoid these deathtrap jobs.
Young men of my class were kidnapped into the navy and consripted into the army to fight wars that almost never had anything to do with the best interests of themselves, their families, or even the country.
The ground they took with their strikes and their rebellions has been quickly lost by our generation. We've been so dumbed down by media and the quick pleasures of consumerism. We buy what we don't need for the emotional package that brainwashing (advertising) says we (and everyone else) should desire. Our education system turns kid against kid and provides plenty of opportunity for alienation and trauma - an organized masses who can see past skin color/gender/sexual orientation/religion to the reconstruction of society has been twarted in so many ways.
To insure our media is never used against them, the corporate interests have bought up just about every damn frequency and bandwidth. If they don't fill them with pro-business propaganda, then they just fill them with bullshit ('christian' radio) or porn.
We deserve to be angry. Sometimes that what it all comes down to.
As the protagonist is getting some of his 'magic' applied to him, changing him from a human soilder into a 'wolf', his shamen says somethings to him regarding the value of hate. "Your cultural histories are filled with tales of the reluctant hero who takes up arm to fight evils, only to win and then return to his simple farm and family. A valient warrior who fights bravely and shows mercy to his fallen foes. This is an O.K. image for a society that needs to downplay violence and domesticate the males, but one must break through this to embrace true hate. It is O.K. to hate the [evil vampire aliens.] Your species is being eaten!" (This is my paraphrase.)
This got me to thinking about how true that is. Revolutionary women, the proud young blacks who gave their lives for the Black Power Movement, even those few fucking democrats who criticise this current administration; all are/were labled 'angry.' As if being angry somehow had some bearing on whether or not that movement was in the right.
We are in a class war that's been raging for at least a few hundred years if not a few thousand. Those who some would call the ruling class or the elites have made purposeful descision to affect the lives and environment that we all develope in. Five or six decades ago men of my class (regardless of skin color, although us whites obviously had it somewhat better) had little rights at all. You worked in the mine or the factory or the stockyard. If a saw took your hand or mine dust killed ya by thirty five, well that was just too fucking bad. If god or anybody else cared then you would have been born with money to avoid these deathtrap jobs.
Young men of my class were kidnapped into the navy and consripted into the army to fight wars that almost never had anything to do with the best interests of themselves, their families, or even the country.
The ground they took with their strikes and their rebellions has been quickly lost by our generation. We've been so dumbed down by media and the quick pleasures of consumerism. We buy what we don't need for the emotional package that brainwashing (advertising) says we (and everyone else) should desire. Our education system turns kid against kid and provides plenty of opportunity for alienation and trauma - an organized masses who can see past skin color/gender/sexual orientation/religion to the reconstruction of society has been twarted in so many ways.
To insure our media is never used against them, the corporate interests have bought up just about every damn frequency and bandwidth. If they don't fill them with pro-business propaganda, then they just fill them with bullshit ('christian' radio) or porn.
We deserve to be angry. Sometimes that what it all comes down to.
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
International Woman's Day, and I get fucked in the ass by 'the man.'
First, let me just say straight out that I am a law abider. Particularily in the area of traffic laws, I feel that we all have to work together to get from point A to point B alive, and so if the society I live in has selected fifty-five miles per hour as the speed limit then that's what I drive. I get better gas milage. I'm able to stop when small pets run out into the street. I'm a free man, and I choose to obey the traffic laws.
The cruel, sardonic bitches that we call the Fates must have really had a hoot with this one then.
Leaving the job site in a upper-middle class neighborhood, the streets all wind all over the fucking place and I just wanted to go home. Dusk was upon us, and then fucking cherries in the rear view. Guess I ran a stop sign the day after some fucker complained to the city that this had become a problem (yeah, it's that sort of neighborhood, where one complaint has a cop sitting there the next day.)
It was getting dark. I did not know the area. The cop admitted that I was going slow, 5 to 10 mph, and honest to fuck I did not have any Idea I drove through a stop sign.
I've got a clean record. I called the fat ass 'sir.' I was obviously a working man eating an apple; not some punk smoking a blunt or some distracted hausfrau yapping on a cell phone. This seems like the perfect time for a warning.
Nope, $132 dollar fine or a court date at the Carver County Courthouse. That's in fucking Chaska, and I live in St. Paul. So not only am I going to lose a day of work when I go to challenge this act of cosmic injustice, but just the fucking gas to drive out to the worthless edge of civilization will amount to half that fine anyways.
Either the pig had a quota he needed to fulfil (he couldn't even look me in the eye when he gave me the ticket, just shuffled off to his car with too many of the mannerisms of a broken man) or he was inclined to assume I'm a bad man since I hadn't shaved in five days.
See, I've got this new Idea where I'll have multiple icons of me-self on this blog, with the icon changing in hairyness with the cycle of the moon. Clean shaven and eloquent during the new phase. Bearded and full of testosterone enhanced aggression during the full moon. Cycles are important for the cultivation of Creativity. Well, I digress.
Grr.
I can't believe I got a ticket! I've talked my way out of dozen of tickets when I was a wild man. I drove the wrong way down a one-way and then parked my car in the motorcycle parking area and talked my way out of that. I flirted my way out of a ticket just last year. Have I lost my touch? Has my silver tongue grown tarnished by age and my growing disdain for so many of my fellow humans?
Must just have been that fucking cop. Irritated by indigestion and dulled to the world by a combination of high blood pressure and thick, walrus-like layers of fat; he sensed I might possess inner peace and so he lashed out.
I need to take a few deep breaths [ mj ] and exhale slowly. I refuse to let the spores of self-hate take root in my soul. Just because that fellow is stuck in a cycle of suffering, does not mean that this witty monkey needs to start mimiking him. It was my desire and expectation of a verbal warning that had me so pissed off - if I had just assumed that flashing lights meant a few less franklins in my wallet, I'd be pleasantly surprised now. Likewise, I should not set myself on any particular outcome from the court case when I contest this.
The cruel, sardonic bitches that we call the Fates must have really had a hoot with this one then.
Leaving the job site in a upper-middle class neighborhood, the streets all wind all over the fucking place and I just wanted to go home. Dusk was upon us, and then fucking cherries in the rear view. Guess I ran a stop sign the day after some fucker complained to the city that this had become a problem (yeah, it's that sort of neighborhood, where one complaint has a cop sitting there the next day.)
It was getting dark. I did not know the area. The cop admitted that I was going slow, 5 to 10 mph, and honest to fuck I did not have any Idea I drove through a stop sign.
I've got a clean record. I called the fat ass 'sir.' I was obviously a working man eating an apple; not some punk smoking a blunt or some distracted hausfrau yapping on a cell phone. This seems like the perfect time for a warning.
Nope, $132 dollar fine or a court date at the Carver County Courthouse. That's in fucking Chaska, and I live in St. Paul. So not only am I going to lose a day of work when I go to challenge this act of cosmic injustice, but just the fucking gas to drive out to the worthless edge of civilization will amount to half that fine anyways.
Either the pig had a quota he needed to fulfil (he couldn't even look me in the eye when he gave me the ticket, just shuffled off to his car with too many of the mannerisms of a broken man) or he was inclined to assume I'm a bad man since I hadn't shaved in five days.
See, I've got this new Idea where I'll have multiple icons of me-self on this blog, with the icon changing in hairyness with the cycle of the moon. Clean shaven and eloquent during the new phase. Bearded and full of testosterone enhanced aggression during the full moon. Cycles are important for the cultivation of Creativity. Well, I digress.
Grr.
I can't believe I got a ticket! I've talked my way out of dozen of tickets when I was a wild man. I drove the wrong way down a one-way and then parked my car in the motorcycle parking area and talked my way out of that. I flirted my way out of a ticket just last year. Have I lost my touch? Has my silver tongue grown tarnished by age and my growing disdain for so many of my fellow humans?
Must just have been that fucking cop. Irritated by indigestion and dulled to the world by a combination of high blood pressure and thick, walrus-like layers of fat; he sensed I might possess inner peace and so he lashed out.
I need to take a few deep breaths [ mj ] and exhale slowly. I refuse to let the spores of self-hate take root in my soul. Just because that fellow is stuck in a cycle of suffering, does not mean that this witty monkey needs to start mimiking him. It was my desire and expectation of a verbal warning that had me so pissed off - if I had just assumed that flashing lights meant a few less franklins in my wallet, I'd be pleasantly surprised now. Likewise, I should not set myself on any particular outcome from the court case when I contest this.
Thursday, March 02, 2006
Sedition?!?
Got some crazy news today that is really gonna make yer head spin. Amy Goodman has been taking Democracy Now! on the road intermittantly; news from Albuquerque, New Mexico ain't good.
Here's the link.
Imagine a woman who has been working as a nurse for the Veteren's Administration for the last fifteen years gets a little worked up when she sees the footage from Katrina on her television and decides to write a letter criticizing our government to her local paper. Within a few days she learns from her Union rep that her letter writing has been reported within the VA - all the way up the chain of command to the F.B.I. Next thing you know her work computer is being siezed and she is being accused of sedition.
Yeah, word to your mother - fucking sedition.
It's a helluva trip.
I suppose I'm getting to the point where I can honestly believe that almost anything is fucking possible in this crazy world of artificial images and distorted education practices, but shouldn't there be some sort of a gut reaction on the parts of Americans when a poor, middle aged nurse writes a single fucking letter of protest and then finds herself accused of sedition?
This isn't even Bush being greedy or acting out some sort of power fantasy that's still rattling around in his head from the days when he used to use cocaine to help line up his brain cells every morning. This is just the repurcussions of an administration that has adapted a policy of cronyism; rewarding the loyal and punishing those who step out of line. These are the proud authors of black lists and white lists. This Ideal of fascist loyalty so permeates everything these fuckers do by the time it trickles down to the Albequerque, New Mexico V.A. level, it just looks rediculous.
But it is not rediculous. It is people sitting entrenched in the armchairs of power using the branchs of our democratic government to abuse those who dare question their power. These people are shitheads.
There should be an impartial investigation into this matter, and everyone who even sin against this woman by failing to stop this obvious harrassment should be canned. When one abuses the power of the people, they should not get a second chance. In the good ole' days those bastards would have been tarred and feathered, then run out of town on a rail.
Yep.
Here's the link.
Imagine a woman who has been working as a nurse for the Veteren's Administration for the last fifteen years gets a little worked up when she sees the footage from Katrina on her television and decides to write a letter criticizing our government to her local paper. Within a few days she learns from her Union rep that her letter writing has been reported within the VA - all the way up the chain of command to the F.B.I. Next thing you know her work computer is being siezed and she is being accused of sedition.
Yeah, word to your mother - fucking sedition.
It's a helluva trip.
I suppose I'm getting to the point where I can honestly believe that almost anything is fucking possible in this crazy world of artificial images and distorted education practices, but shouldn't there be some sort of a gut reaction on the parts of Americans when a poor, middle aged nurse writes a single fucking letter of protest and then finds herself accused of sedition?
This isn't even Bush being greedy or acting out some sort of power fantasy that's still rattling around in his head from the days when he used to use cocaine to help line up his brain cells every morning. This is just the repurcussions of an administration that has adapted a policy of cronyism; rewarding the loyal and punishing those who step out of line. These are the proud authors of black lists and white lists. This Ideal of fascist loyalty so permeates everything these fuckers do by the time it trickles down to the Albequerque, New Mexico V.A. level, it just looks rediculous.
But it is not rediculous. It is people sitting entrenched in the armchairs of power using the branchs of our democratic government to abuse those who dare question their power. These people are shitheads.
There should be an impartial investigation into this matter, and everyone who even sin against this woman by failing to stop this obvious harrassment should be canned. When one abuses the power of the people, they should not get a second chance. In the good ole' days those bastards would have been tarred and feathered, then run out of town on a rail.
Yep.
